Your Land Is Their Land

[wayneinfl]

We haven't had a good chat about illegal immigration lately.

www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=319075626333161

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 2/9/2009

Illegal Immigration: Our southern border is so out of control you can now be sued by those illegally entering the country and trespassing on your property. Illegal aliens, it seems, have a right to interstate travel.

Read More: Latin America & Caribbean

The trial of American citizen Roger Barnett began last week and is scheduled to run through Friday. The Douglas, Ariz., rancher, along with wife Barbara and brother, Donald, is fighting a federal lawsuit by 16 illegal aliens who claim he violated their rights, falsely imprisoned them and inflicted emotional distress by holding them at gunpoint until the authorities arrived.

On March 7, 2004, Barnett approached the illegal aliens on an all-terrain vehicle, pointed a gun at them, cursed them in English and broken Spanish, and ordered his dog to attack them. He is also said to have kicked a woman in the group, according to a release from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

Barnett owns or leases 22,000 acres (35 square miles) along the border in southeastern Arizona. A retired Cochise County sheriff's deputy and owner of a towing business, he acquired his ranch in the mid-1990s and has been fighting illegal aliens crossing it ever since.

It is square in the path of the illegal alien migration. They consider him a vigilante for trying to protect his property and have brought him to court many times for doing just that. In February 2008, the Arizona Court of Appeals refused to throw out a verdict and a $100,000 award from November 2006 for another family caught crossing his property.

In March 2008, the same judge, U.S. District Court Judge John Rolf, refused to toss this case out as well, saying that sufficient evidence of a conspiracy existed, that the actions of the three defendants were motivated by race and that the Barnetts had denied the illegal aliens' right to interstate travel. We are not making this up.

Each illegal alien is suing for $1 million in actual damages and $1 million for punitive or exemplary damages. The lawsuit alleges that Barnett never told the illegals they were trespassing and failed to notify them that they were on private property.

The fact that they crossed the border illegally seems to be irrelevant. The suit stopped short of accusing the Barnetts of failure to set up a visitors center and offer coffee.

The American Southwest has staggered under the burden of illegal immigration that has been put on the health care and educational systems of these states, not to mention on taxpayers and law enforcement. Illegal aliens have ravaged the environment, leaving mountains of trash and spoiling wildlife habitats.

Barnett claims to have apprehended or turned over to the U.S. Border Patrol thousands of illegal aliens over the years, and considering the documented volume of traffic, it is hard to doubt him. Many of these apprehensions have occurred at gunpoint.

Violence has repeatedly spilled across our border with Mexico, endangering the lives and properties of U.S. citizens. Many have been kidnapped and held for ransom. Barnett's fear for his family and their safety is not unfounded.

As Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told a Senate hearing before the Democrats took control, "Illegal immigration threatens our communities and our national security." So much so that the governors of New Mexico and Arizona, Bill Richardson and Janet Napolitano, who replaced Chertoff at DHS, at one point declared border emergencies.

We still have a border emergency. As Mexico nears collapse as a nation state, it becomes imperative that we control our southern border and protect the property rights and security of American citizens like Roger Barnett before the drug violence escalates and Mexico collapses.

Don't call the Barnetts and groups like the Minutemen "vigilantes." A better description would be to call them "undocumented" Border Patrol agents.

[wayneinfl]

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/09/16-illegals-sue-arizona-rancher/?comment_page=2

An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, he said, after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.

His Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., is known by federal and county law enforcement authorities as "the avenue of choice" for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally.

Trial continues Monday in the federal lawsuit, which seeks $32 million in actual and punitive damages for civil rights violations, the infliction of emotional distress and other crimes. Also named are Mr. Barnett's wife, Barbara, his brother, Donald, and Larry Dever, sheriff in Cochise County, Ariz., where the Barnetts live. The civil trial is expected to continue until Friday.

The lawsuit is based on a March 7, 2004, incident in a dry wash on the 22,000-acre ranch, when he approached a group of illegal immigrants while carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog.

Attorneys for the immigrants - five women and 11 men who were trying to cross illegally into the United States - have accused Mr. Barnett of holding the group captive at gunpoint, threatening to turn his dog loose on them and saying he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.

The immigrants are represented at trial by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which also charged that Sheriff Dever did nothing to prevent Mr. Barnett from holding their clients at "gunpoint, yelling obscenities at them and kicking one of the women."

In the lawsuit, MALDEF said Mr. Barnett approached the group as the immigrants moved through his property, and that he was carrying a pistol and threatening them in English and Spanish. At one point, it said, Mr. Barnett's dog barked at several of the women and he yelled at them in Spanish, "My dog is hungry and he's hungry for buttocks."

The lawsuit said he then called his wife and two Border Patrol agents arrived at the site. It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.

In March, U.S. District Judge John Roll rejected a motion by Mr. Barnett to have the charges dropped, ruling there was sufficient evidence to allow the matter to be presented to a jury. Mr. Barnett's attorney, David Hardy, had argued that illegal immigrants did not have the same rights as U.S. citizens.

Mr. Barnett told The Washington Times in a 2002 interview that he began rounding up illegal immigrants after they started to vandalize his property, northeast of Douglas along Arizona Highway 80. He said the immigrants tore up water pumps, killed calves, destroyed fences and gates, stole trucks and broke into his home.

Some of his cattle died from ingesting the plastic bottles left behind by the immigrants, he said, adding that he installed a faucet on an 8,000-gallon water tank so the immigrants would stop damaging the tank to get water.

Mr. Barnett said some of the ranch´s established immigrant trails were littered with trash 10 inches deep, including human waste, used toilet paper, soiled diapers, cigarette packs, clothes, backpacks, empty 1-gallon water bottles, chewing-gum wrappers and aluminum foil - which supposedly is used to pack the drugs the immigrant smugglers give their "clients" to keep them running.

He said he carried a pistol during his searches for the immigrants and had a rifle in his truck "for protection" against immigrant and drug smugglers, who often are armed.

ASSOCIATED PRESS DEFENDANT: Roger Barnett said he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.

A former Cochise County sheriff´s deputy who later was successful in the towing and propane business, Mr. Barnett spent $30,000 on electronic sensors, which he has hidden along established trails on his ranch. He searches the ranch for illegal immigrants in a pickup truck, dressed in a green shirt and camouflage hat, with his handgun and rifle, high-powered binoculars and a walkie-talkie.

His sprawling ranch became an illegal-immigration highway when the Border Patrol diverted its attention to several border towns in an effort to take control of the established ports of entry. That effort moved the illegal immigrants to the remote areas of the border, including the Cross Rail Ranch.

"This is my land. I´m the victim here," Mr. Barnett said. "When someone´s home and loved ones are in jeopardy and the government seemingly can´t do anything about it, I feel justified in taking matters into my own hands. And I always watch my back."

[Peltigera]

It is only 97 years since illegal immigrants stole Arizona from its rightfull owners. Now those illegal immigrants are complaining that other immigrants are doing the same to them. If it was OK in 1912, then it is OK now and |Roger Barnett has no complaint. If it is not OK now, it was not OK in 1912 and Roger Barnett needs to get off the Apache land.

[wayneinfl]

He didn't steal the land- he bought it, regardless of what happened in 1912, or when we bough the land from Mexico in 1853. Besides, the Indians shot at them- Roger Barnett is just detaining them and having them arrested.

And even if you think he should allow illegal immigration, why should he allow people to trespass, vandalize, and leave trash on his land and government land that he is obligated by law to protect?

[Pax]

Bought the land from Mexico in 1853? It wasn't a simple land deal -- the United States took it by force, then "paid" for the land. Mexico would never have given it up voluntarily. It was annexation by force.

Anyway, whatever happened in 1853, however the ownership of the land transferred down from the Mexican government to a Texas rancher, it is land within the borders of the United States and the United States recognizes him as the legal owner. Under the laws of the United States, he has the right to expect that his land won't be trespassed on, much less vandalized. I don't necessarily agree with how he goes about doing that, but he does have that right. As for the immigrants, courts might have been far less sympathetic to his complaints if his property hadn't been damaged on this and other occasions.

These are all just symptoms anyway. The real problem is the economic inequity between the United States and Mexico. I don't know what the correct solution to that is. Mexico just isn't set up geographically to be an economic powerhouse, especially compared to its neighbor, though I suppose it they were smart they could invest in providing information technology services, a route that India has successfully pursued.

[wayneinfl]

"Bought the land from Mexico in 1853? It wasn't a simple land deal -- the United States took it by force, then "paid" for the land. Mexico would never have given it up voluntarily. It was annexation by force."

It's more complicated than that, too. Spain took it from Indians, Mexico took it from Spain, Mexico needed money so they sold land in Texas to people from the United States, to settled there. They didn't like a bunch English speaking settlers on their land, changed their minds and made immigration illegal. The new Texans rebelled, created their own nation and when the US finally annexed it, Mexico got ticked and started attacking us. We had made offers on New Mexico long before, we actually bought it in 1853. After the war, they changed their minds.

Looking at the government and infrastructure in Mexico it's pretty sad that we didn't buy the whole thing. They would have a more liveable wage, environmental controls, and less corruption.

[wayneinfl]

But you are right- that's moot now, he bough the land fair and square, it's within US borders and subject to our laws. And the differences stem from an economic inequality.

"...I suppose it they were smart they could invest in providing information technology services, a route that India has successfully pursued. "

Why do that? Fox has the US to blame for his government's failures. The only reason his people are poor is that we don't allow them unfettered access to cross our borders for jobs he can't provide in his own country.

[Pax]

I think I agree with your second post...

As for exactly how the Mexican-American war went down, I read a darker view of it, where Texans used Mexico's welcome of them to encourage English-speaking immigration with the intent all along to generate such a large English-speaking settlement that they would declare secession and join the United States. They gambled that, under these circumstances, the United States would "defend" their "right to secede."

That is, it's not like all this "just happened," it was a deliberate and successful campaign by some English-speakers to bring about exactly what happened. There's different ways to cut it that sound more or less bad, but I can't think of an alternative that doesn't in some way involve something that meets the definition of out-and-out theft of 500,000 square miles of Mexican territory.

[wayneinfl]

"As for exactly how the Mexican-American war went down, I read a darker view of it, where Texans used Mexico's welcome of them to encourage English-speaking immigration with the intent all along to generate such a large English-speaking settlement that they would declare secession and join the United States. "

That's ridiculous. American developers bought land in Mexico for resale, and moved there. They had signed a contract with Mexico City to allow settlers in to fill that land. They didn't do so with the intent to declare secession; how the heck would they have been able to sell it? By all accounts, the settlers were happy to leave the US, happy to live in Mexico, under the Mexican flag. Unfortunately, there was such a large English speaking enclave that they faced discrimination; the governor (or did they call them viceroys?) of that region sent back to the president that he Mexican culture was being replaced with an English culture. Soon Mexico shut them down and the land was worthless since it could only be sold to poor Mexicans, who did not want to settle that far North, not Americans.

Again, all a moot point in 2008.

[Pax]

I don't think it was ridiculous. The president of Texas knew the day he was sworn in that he would only be president until Texas joined the union.

They also left out another option: When they faced discrimination -- assuming they actually did, I don't know if that was propaganda or not, but let's say that part was true -- they could simply have left.

Instead, they called in a foreign army to defend land that was not theirs to give. Thousands died.

You can sell your house to the British government, but see how far you or Britain would get trying to defend it from the American government with British soldiers.

It was theft, paid for with the blood of Americans. There's no other way to view it. Upside: It was our destiny, made manifest.

Anyway, the point is moot now.

[crazielollie]

" Barnett never told the illegals they were trespassing and failed to notify them that they were on private property."

Maybe we need to send fliers to the border (Mexico side) to let them know that the land on this side is all "owned", whether by individuals or the government so they'll know they are trespassing the second they cross the border. Think that'll stop them? This suit is beyond reason.

[wayneinfl]

"I don't think it was ridiculous. The president of Texas knew the day he was sworn in that he would only be president until Texas joined the union."

That day came long after people had sunk their life savings into Mexican land.

"They also left out another option: When they faced discrimination -- assuming they actually did, I don't know if that was propaganda or not, but let's say that part was true -- they could simply have left."

Sure. And you could just up and leave your home and your livelihood that you just spent your life's savings on, pack up your wife and kids, and trek a month or so across the countryside back to home with nothing to show for it.

"Instead, they called in a foreign army to defend land that was not theirs to give. Thousands died."

They paid for that land. And that foreign army they asked for didn't come.

"You can sell your house to the British government, but see how far you or Britain would get trying to defend it from the American government with British soldiers."

It's more like the the US economy collapses, and the American government sells cheap land to British investors for a premium, allowing a few Brits to immigrate onto the land, then decide to stop the whole thing, rendering the land worthless. Then the British immigrants kick Federal overseers off their property and declare their own nation. The American government tries to run them off and gets its butt kicked. Then ten years or so later the British settlers are annexed into Britain, and America gets ticked off and attacks. The British counterattack and send America back across a safe distance from the settlement a good strategic line, like a river and declare the border right there. Another decade or so, and Americans are still poor as dirt and take money for the adjoining desert lands that they can't afford to settle on anyway.

[wayneinfl]

British people are probably looking at the above scenario and thinking, "Hey, that's not a bad idea..." Especially seeing as how we took this land from them, too.

[Peltigera]

Wayne, I can assure you that we have no interest in taking USA problems on. You are going to have to sort them out yourselves.

"Especially seeing as how we took this land from them, too." I thought you lived in Florida, Wayne. That Florida which we sold back to the Spanish when we discovered it was worthless. Florida was never a part of the colonial rebellion. Actually,we have never been particularly bothered about you taking a few of our American colonies from us. We got to keep the wealthy colonies and were freed to claim the jewel in the crown - the Raj.

[wayneinfl]

"Especially seeing as how we took this land from them, too." I thought you lived in Florida, Wayne. That Florida which we sold back to the Spanish when we discovered it was worthless. Florida was never a part of the colonial rebellion. Actually,we have never been particularly bothered about you taking a few of our American colonies from us. We got to keep the wealthy colonies and were freed to claim the jewel in the crown - the Raj.

Sorry. I was referring to the original 13. I am thoroughly familiar with Florida history.

They seemed bothered enough to send a bunch of troops over here.

" That Florida which we sold back to the Spanish when we discovered it was worthless."

We seem to have a knack for acquiring worthless land and making it worth something. Kind of like our people did in Texas. Then the sellers want it back, and we want to keep it.

[joethree56]

True John, The American colonies always cost us more to administer and service than ever we reaped from them. They did of course make some individuals rich while burdening the broad bulk of British taxpayers so they were in effect a conduit for moving wealth from the masses to a few. Much like present Iraqi war is doing for the USA.